About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
MSNBCW 35
MSNBC 25
FOXNEWS 18
CNNW 8
CSPAN 3
CNN 2
FBC 2
WETA 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 122
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 122 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> the president responds to questions about susan rice -- >> about the benghazi attacks. >> senator mccain and senator graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> former cia director david petraeus will testify before the senate intelligence committee. >> general petraeus had an affair with his biographer. people are snapping up copies of the book. >> it's so pathetic. >> the book is available in hard cover and extremely hard cover. >>> today on an i'm sorry i lost conference call with top campaign don't oorors, mitt rom said the president won the election because he game african-american and latino voters, quote, gifts. abc news has this audio. >> what the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> romney also said that the president's campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift so he made a big effort on small things. those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars. he said the president f
about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. and you know, we're after an election now. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in benghazi, and i'm happy to cooperate in any ways that congress wants. we have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information and we've got a full-blown investigation. and all that information will be disgorged to congress. and i don't
've been told the cia had been telling susan rice? >> i think the real problem for general petraeus in this story is that it not only does not mesh with what the white house was saying, it doesn't mesh with what we're told general petraeus said in the immediate aftermath, where he is said to have talked about a spontaneous flash mob. >> to members of congress. >> to members of congress behind closed doors as well and this is the problem. it's not only that we know that that's not true now, it's that at the time there were a lot of other indications that indicate that was not true, denied by the libyan prime minister, the cia station chief called it an act of terror. we had the fbi and i believe the national center for counterterrorism also giving briefings. >> paul: that's right. >> saying this. why was general petraeus's testimony then so at odds with other parts of the community? >> but does this, would this give-- what does it mean for, say, susan rice and the administration then? is this, does this help them politically by shielding them or does petraeus here saying i thought it
. >> the american people deserve to know the facts. we cannot ever let this happen again. >> why would susan rice not get our vote? i don't trust her. >> defending susan rice. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> there are no barriers to sitting down and beginning to work through this process. >> as the fiscal cliff loans, is there a deal in the works? mitt romney explains why he lost. >> the president's campaign focused on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and worked very aggressively to turn them out to vote. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> well, i just don't know where to begin this week. do we talk about republican charges of a cover-up with regard to the attack in benghazi? do we talk about sexual liaisons and e-mails? to talk about israel and gaza, the possibility of the fiscal cliff? let's start with the sex. [laughter] cia director resigns after the fbi uncovers e-mails showing that general david petraeus had an extrama
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
. and that if you nominate susan rice for secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter from making a nomination like that? >> first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the succeecond term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothin
want to ask you about susan rice, she is meeting with senators mccain, graham, and ayott. do you think she has explaining to do with what she said about benghazi? and would you support her if she is nominated for secretary of state? >> she's not yet been nominated. so i'm going to look carefully at her credentials, which i think qualify her very well to be nominated. i think she's done a very good job at the united nations. i do think she's explained that what she said about benghazi was the intelligence that she was given. and she'll have an opportunity as she meets with senators to further explain that position. >> do you think they're open to giving her a fair hearing? because some pretty tough things have been said about her. >> well, it's unfortunate that much of that discussion has gotten so personal. she does need to get a fair hearing. i'm hopeful senator mccain is a patriot, i think he'll give her a fair hearing. i'm certain my colleague from new hampshire, and of lindsey graham. so i do believe that it's in the country's interest to give her a fair hearing and to let her expl
blame game that drew the president's ire, defending susan rice after comments by republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham that they would oppose her nomination to be secretary of state based on remarks she made about the benghazi attacks. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmerch her reputation is outrageous. >> indeed. let's get to our panel julian epstein, lynn sweet, washington bureau sweet for chicago "sun-times" and msnbc political analyst professor michael eric dyson of georgetown university. professor dyson,fy might begin with you, perhaps the most hated moment in that press conference was the president's barely concealed anger that republicans have been attacking ambassador susan rice for the confusion surrounding the benghazi consulate attacks. this, as you know, has been the drum beat from republicans from the right wing media for
session. i can give you my assessment based on questions, my investigation, that what susan rice did was use talking points, pulled out originally by the cia signed off by the intelligence community, those were requested by the house committee. the intelligence committee sign off of it. the key was there were unclassified talking points at an early stage. i do not think she should be pelerine for this. she did what i would have done or anybody else would have done that was going on a weekend show. you would have said what talking points can i use? you get an unclassified version. i just remember -- i just read it to the committee what i was going to tell you and questions asked. to be sure it did not violate our rules. this particularly is for people in public office because you are used to answering questions candidly to have to be restricted to what is unclassified. is very difficult for your >> did he talk about his resignation? >> [indiscernible] >> i think it is making a very divisive -- we have seen wrong intelligence before. it all surrounded our going into iraq. a lot of peop
't as many big candidates out there. >> thanks, ari. >> thanks, lawrence. >> the frying of susan rice. let's play "hardball." >>> good evening i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start with this war in washington. say what you will about the election we just had. this one's hotter, nastier, more personal. one side says it's about character, about whether a close confederate of the president told the truth, the whole truth as she knew it when she went on national television and said the death of a u.s. ambassador was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-muslim video, some trouble-making clown made out in california. ignoring john mccain and his ail argue evidence it was an organized act of terrorism. not so says the president. his u.n. ambassador and close friend simply told the truth as she was permitted to tell it, what the cia gave her to say and no more. for that he charges susan rice, in the words of the new york post, being fried. political fight fans on the tabloids relish this extreme combat what should be a good person's judgment? that's my question tonight. is susan rice now a s
back to the president's press conference taking a pretty tough decisive tone on susan rice. and then you look at what's happening -- and also his position on the tax increases. take all of that together, it looks like more of the same. do you think -- do you sense, from your reporting, are we just having people circle each other or are their feet in stone? >> i think there's still some areas where people can move and get to the right place. but, you know, the two things i just keep thinking about is i think the business community, i think, what steve says is exactly right. seems like from the outside what they want more than anything is certain certainty. just moment to moment and minute to minute, it's crisis to crisis. that's an atmosphere not conducive toward optimal economic activity. this notion of trying to get to long-term, as you said, to long-term stability but not having short-term austerity measures that would be too depressed on consumer activity seems like where we need to end up. i think there's going to be a lot of pressure on the business community on republ
. the white house is leaning towards u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice to replace clinton at foggy bottom. rice's confirmation is far from assured giving the questions surrounding her handling of the attacks in benghazi. defense secretary leon panetta made it clear he is ready for retirement. senator john kerry, eyeing the secretary of state position may be asked to replace panetta. adding to the stakes of musical chairs, general allen's confirmation hearing to lead nato has been put on hold. during the campaign president obama called for nation building at home in his second term. he'll need to start by rebuilding his own team. john heilemann, you were a guest on the very first program of this show, there is a lot happening inside the president's inner leadership circle. how much of a problem do you think this is for him? >> first of all, let's not -- let's terry for a moment on -- i have been doing some math, 8,760, that's the number for today, 8,760 hours. >> wow. >> since alex wagner took over that chair and ever since -- >> subjected america to this program. >> and ev
, therefore, not in the much talked about talking points that susan rice and others refer to publicly where there was a lot more focus on the potential for a spontaneous demonstration, the video, that kind of thing. that the piece of this puzzle that was more clearly known by the intelligence community of the involvement of terror groups was classified. in part that could be argued as a protection required in order to try to pursue them, that kind of thing. that is new information today, and it helps to show us how there might have been two tracks happening all along. the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known. the real question is, if they knew it was terrorism all along, was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved? that's what people see very differently often based on their political point of view. >> yes, and it is based on political point of view. the fact of the matter, the information that susan rice was provided and what she indicated on "meet the press" and other programs, that would have been a part of the de
to the united nations, susan rice came under fire from republican senators. senators john mccain and lindsey graham, back at it, trying to trump up the ambassador's role in the benghazi consulate attacks. they took their shots at ambassador rice this morning and the president hit back. >> senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> that's loyalty to a staff member. if looks could kill, the president's look would be a cruise missile. it was the most sustained anger, i think it will be the most sustained anger that we have seen and will see coming from this president in a display in a television news conference. now, there is no evidence the ambassador did anything wrong, regarding the benghazi attacks. president obama is not about to let a member of his administration get dragged th
gave us a pregame of accusations, involving ambassador susan rice. some house members say this is worse than watergate. >> this is not simply a coverup of a third-rate burglary. we have four of our diplomatic personnel dead and it has not a mccarthy era tactic to demand that the american people ares no misinformed about it to the point that they don't know what the threat is. >> the loud mouths were john mccain of arizona who spent the last three days despairaging ambassador rice for her public remarks about benghazi early on. >> susan rice should have known better. if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. i will brok her to be the united states secretary of state. she has proven she either doesn't understand or not willing to accept evidence on its face. >> these republicans were certain they were absolutely certain susan rice was not telling the truth. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated, fully documented documents, that's not true. >> general david petraeus. the disgraced chief testified to the house and senate committ
diane feinstein defendeded u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. that is not my recollection of what he told us september 14th. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if the intent is to assess nate -- >> joining me now is karen finny a political analyst and armstrong williams a conservative columnist and host of the right side with armstrong williams. hello to you both. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first with you, karen. you just heard from congressman king. one of his biggest complaints was the white house held back information that this was a terrorist attack claiming this was classified. this is different from the white house's initial defense that they did call it a terrorist attack right away. are they changing their tune? >> well, what i find interesting is the way congressman king and a number of the other republicans have changed their tune from the night before the briefing and oh, what a difference it makes when you actu
president obama would like to see susan rice as his secretary of state? >> well, let's say 50% and -- >> you're putting it at a fair 50. >> 50% and the other 50% susan rice is a proxy for this president. i've said it again and will say it again there has been a witch hunt for every person of color that has served alongside this president. there are really serious things, if that's actually english -- >> only you would know, yes. >> about benghazi that they should be investigating. what is troubling is that four foreign service officers died. what is truly troubling on top of that, is that these senators apparently believe that going on a talk show, even a series of sunday talk shows, makes you responsible for the security of people in the field. they know that's notes the case. they know that susan rice isn't the line manager responsible for security. didn't block the right security for these officials or funding thereof. she's in the part of the cia. she was out doing what they do on sunday talk shows which is talking about a whole range of subjects. i suspect that if you asked john mccain
by the cia and what was ultimately embraced to am bass sore susan rice. what we mean here is there was a review process and an editing process in which the emphasis on extremist groups, al-qaida, an sar al says sharia was deemphasized in the second version used by ambassador rice. at what point did the former cia director believe that this was an act of terrorism or an act of extremists? a s*r member of the committee told fox a sort time ago was what the director laid off was an evolving picture on intel kwrepbs. >> he reinforced the facts -- in the first 24 hours he felt at that point, or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film. he clarified that after -- after more information came in there was not a protest. >> reporter: one lawmaker telling fox after the hearing that he did feel that there were discrepancies between the former cia director's statements today about what he said on september 14th, and the recollection of that lawmaker. let's listen. >> his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that th
like yourself talk that this issue is much bigger than susan rice. let me drill down on one area here. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking points. at 4:00 in the afternoon the cia acting director came back and said it was at cia after all. what explains that? >> this stuff is coming from the white house. they are hoping this will go away. i don't happen to be one of the senators she cares to talk about and maybe it's because while opposed to her from her position as ambassador of the united nations and nothing could change my mind on that. bill: based on that answer it appears you are willing to take that answer higher than susan rice with it comes to benghazi. >> this will go down as the biggest coverup in history. they all knew it. they are hoping to have it go beyond the election date which it did. but people are not going to forget it. the administration deliberately covered this and misrepresented what happened in benghazi threatened up in the both of four people. one of whom
some of her biggest critics. ambassador susan rice goes to capitol hill this hour where she will meet with republican lawmakers who have been furious with her initial remarks on libyan terror attack. how will this story go? that is our lead morning. i'm bill hemmer. martha: i'm martha maccallum. about five days after our consulate was attacked on september the 11th we all remember ambassador rice went on all five sunday shows and said the killing of the ambassador and three other americans was actually the result of a spontaneous mob sparking outrage, those comments did, from top gop lawmakers including these three senators, mccain, graham and ayotte. >> don't we all have the responsibility before we go out and talk to the american people on all five sunday morning shows for verifying those facts are true? >> the most basic information about what happened on the night of the attack, and what survivors had to say after the attack is not being provided and we'll talk more about that. bill: so you wonder then whether or not they will get the answers they're looking for. whether or not so
-style hearings on the attack on the consulate in benghazi and if you nominate susan rice as secretary of state they will do everything they can to block the nomination. he says he simply doesn't trust her. >> i won't comment at this point on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator tbram and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she received, and besmir much her reputation is outrageous. and, you know, afte
meant for the susan rice appearance recentlyally contain the information that there was evidence of al qaeda's elements involved in this attack. but it appears as if those talking points were altered by the white house or somebody close to the white house to remove any reference to al qaeda's involvement in the attacks. we have yet to discover who has changed the talking points to make the president look for favorable and mislead you, by falsely labeling the 9/11 attacks over spontaneous mob over the video. petraeus has no idea what was provided to rice or who was the author of the talking points that she used that, he had no idea she was going on the talk shows until the white house announced it one or two days before. now, the looming question is, in this coverup, who did it? now, earlier, fox's own katherineererridge explained where the talking points went once they left the cia. >> what we are told about the talking points is that it went through an inter-agency review, including the department of justice, the state department, agencies and that at the end of the day you have this
with senators john mccain and lindsey graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators. the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were tlog hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we get answers to our concerns. we're not even close to getting t the basic answers. >> we're e troubled by ma
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 122 (some duplicates have been removed)